Porn Is Like Heroin In The Brain

Focus On The Family ^ | Nov. 19, 2004 | Stuart Shepard

[Lindykim]

Porn Like Heroin in the Brain by Stuart Shepard, correspondent

Senate committee discusses pornography and the First Amendment.

Experts on pornography's effects on brain chemistry testified at a Senate hearing this week where a key point of discussion was whether porn is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment or addictive material that should be unlawful.

Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover described how pornography is analogous to cigarettes, noting that "it is a very carefully designed delivery system for evoking a tremendous flood within the brain of endogenous opioids." It's time, he added, to stop regarding it as simply a form of expression. "Modern science," Satinover said, "allows us to understand that the underlying nature of an addiction to pornography is chemically nearly identical to a heroin addiction."

Dr. Mary Anne Layden with the Center for Cognitive Therapy at the University of Pennsylvania explained how a pornographic image is burned into the brain's pathways.

"That image is in your brain forever," she explained. "If that was an addictive substance, you, at any point for the rest of your life, could in a nanosecond draw it up."

Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education, called on the Senate to take action against pornography, saying it's time to mandate that law enforcement begin to collect all data and pornographic materials found in the possession of anyone involved in criminal activity. Doing so, she added, would yield data showing whether pornography is being used as a how-to manual for sex crimes.

"The evidence the panelists presented showed an overwhelming harm from pornography," said Daniel Weiss, media and sexuality analyst with Focus on the Family. He hopes the Senate will turn the evidence into action.

TAKE ACTION/FOR MORE INFORMATION If you think Congress should be taking serious action against pornography, you can start by thanking Sen. Sam Brownback for calling the hearing, then contact your representatives in Congress and let them know what you think. For help in contacting your elected representatives, please see our CitizenLink Action Center.

Also, to learn more about one person's struggles with pornography, we suggest the resource "An Affair of the Mind: One Woman's Courageous Battle to Salvage Her Family From the Devastation of Pornography." Author Laurie Hall shares her courageous struggle to protect herself and two children from her husband's addiction to pornography.

[Modernman]

In this case the pornography would be the evidence of a crime, i.e. photographs or films of child abuse, nicht war

Not necessarily. It may be perfectly legal for two 16 year-olds to have sex, but it's illegal to film it.

[Captiva]

Homos are the new blacks in Hollywood

I thought brown was the new black this year? That's what I read in Us magazine...

[Captiva]

Hey - no logic allowed here.



;)

[Captiva]

Material sex will only be legal when witnessed by the proper committee.

I would like to volunteer for this committee.

But only the committee that gets to review the beautiful people crowd. No nudie beach people.

[PeterFinn]

Then I think we have reached common ground!

(-:

I'm all for restricting porn wherever we can so long as the action does not allow a general restriction on free speech.

I would not support banning publication of magazines or even private production of currently legal videos.

I do support the President with his faith-based initiatives that would have an effect on people's hearts. It is far better to reduce the demand for porn than to threaten liberty by restricting speech.

[Lindykim]

Ridiculous only because you {personally} "want" it to be so.
There are 'substanceless' addictions. Gambling is one, using porn is another. Note the word "using".......people 'use' porn to 'attain" something personal.
When they 'use' porn, the reality is that they are 'using' human beings who've been dehumanized into 'slabs of meat' with genitals.

[tacticalogic]

It's all I can do to convince people they can't use strict constuctionist arguments that say the original intent of the First Amendment was only to protect political speech, and then turn around and argue that since porn isn't protected we can use living document "New Deal" Commerce Clause legislation to regulate it.

[Lindykim]

snip...
All alcohol users are drunk drivers


If that was true, then police would do away with sobriety tests since even one glass of wine would, according to your logic, define a driver as an 'alcohol user'.


Logic is common sense, and common sense cannot be placed within a formulaic strait-jacket.

[Modernman]

The pornographers rule, citizenry must obey.

Your argument falls apart due to the tiny little fact that you are not required to view pornography.

[Modernman]

I say let them have what they want. When their marriage is destroyed and they are eat up with VD, or when their daughters show up between the pages, they should just STFU.

It's called personal responsibility. If you make stupid decisions, you suffer the consequences.

Or are you in favor of having the government protect people from themselves?

[Modernman]

Did the righteous kings of the Old Testament tolerate Baal worship and confine themselves to preaching against it ? No. They tore down the sacred groves and high places and ran out the temple prostitutes. Elijah, a prophet so holy that he went straight to heaven, commanded the massacre of the Baal priests. In the early Christian communities were not the reprobate punished by expulsion ?

So you're saying you WANT to live in a society where people who practice a religion you don't like can be oppressed and their priests murdered?

Sorry, we overthrew the Taliban or I'd suggest giving Afghanistan a try.

[Modernman]

Precisely. Pornography renders men unfit for real relationships with real human women who aren't 38-24-26 eternally submissive blondes. Men who are addicted to pornography never grow up because they reject the real life give and take of a real relationship with a real, physically imperfect, woman who has opinions of her own.

And the solution to this problem is giving the state more power to regulate peoples' lives?

Sorry, we don't have a President Hillary (yet).

[PeterFinn]

The government, like a private corporation, has the right to restrict material conveyed on publicly owned media. Not all of it, but some parts of the internet are government owned.

[Modernman]

So the fact that we live in a society where 30% (some stats go as high as 50% for HPV) of sexually active women have an STD is ok with you?

Yes, actually.

[Modernman]

How about if the states had the right to restrict or even prohibit the production, distribution, sale and purchase of pornography? How does that sound?

Silly.

[tacticalogic]

The government, like a private corporation, has the right to restrict material conveyed on publicly owned media. Not all of it, but some parts of the internet are government owned.

I'll go farther than that and say in many cases they have a responsibility to restrict it. When I see crack them down on the Rats using government mail servers and copy machines to send out campaign literature I'll be more inclined to think they might have a clue.

[PeterFinn]

"So w/o pornography & alcohol Mr. Bundy would be a contributing member of society, quite possibly an asset to Free Republic."

I don't know about FR, but I'm sure Mr. Bundy would be welcomed at DU. I have no doubt that the DUmmies opposed his death sentence.

[Modernman]

Yes, if it was their daughter, son, wife, sister, or brother being used and exloited like a slab of meat they would feel and think differently.

Honestly? No, I wouldn't.

But then, unlike some CINO's on this thread, I don't want to rely on government to solve all my problems for me.

[tacticalogic]

That was awful. crack them = them crack.

[Modernman]

Slavery was wrong because it violated "intrinsic" moral laws

No. Slavery was wrong because it violated inalienable rights.

Nobody's rights are harmed by pornography so a government in a free society does not have the power to ban it.